How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild and ... Got Accused of Plagiarism??

<p>In no way was I defending her. I, like you, believe the plagiarism was done knowingly. I also agree that the book deal probably tipped the scales in her favor; however, her book deal was just one (albeit a very big one) aspect of an app that was rather good (I don't have enough information to say whether it was good enough for Harvard or not though)</p>

<p>hdyrophase1- </p>

<p>The articles stated that she received a book deal during her junior year. Based upon that, she would certainly have had time to include it upon her application. </p>

<p>It's nice that you know classmates that feel Viswanathan was an incredibly honest person. </p>

<p>I've personally know drug dealers and murderers that were some of the nicest, calmest, most courteous people imaginable. If they accidentally stepped on your foot, they would apoligize profusely. </p>

<p>I guess that makes them innocent too, huh?</p>

<p>As an intelligent person, what do you make of all these articles? Can you see any logical way anything she says could be true?</p>

<p>McCafferty doesn't seem to think so. Neither do her publishers. Most of the people in this thread don't think so. </p>

<p>The evidence is overwhelming. The girl has clearly lied. </p>

<p>I mean hey, there are people "unsure" about whether the Holocaust occured too, but that's not logical is it?</p>

<p>well, um, i think this is getting out of hand.. maybe we should take a step back and stop attacking. since there are no results out from the professionals yet or anyone else directly involved (besides Viswanathan, who is obviously a biased source), there is no sure way to judge who is right or wrong, so it will only end in a fruitless argument that will have hurt both sides. this can be carried out in a calmer fashion =D no?!?!?!? Yay!!</p>

<p>The reason I'm still not certain that she knowingly plaigarized is because it seems like such a dumb move on her part. Is there anyone you know who is stupid enough to recieve a $500,000 book deal and then proceed to plaigarize it? </p>

<p>I suppose you're imagining her sitting in the library, typing up her novel with other books sitting open around her as she blatantly types in phrases word for word, giggling and thinking, "oo, no one will notice this! I'm gonna be so rich!" I'm sorry, I don't buy it.</p>

<p>She is too smart to knowingly throw away her future like this. If she was bright enough to snag this book deal in the first place, certainly she's smart enough to realize what plaigarizing would do to her career.</p>

<p>hydrophase-</p>

<p>Yes, it's stupid. WHAT DO YOU EXPECT OUT OF A 17 YEAR OLD?? Her publishers were probably pressuring her to write a book, and with the pressure of having it be a success, she did this. </p>

<p>Can you give any BETTER explanation than "doing so would be too stupid"?</p>

<p>Murderers who videotape their crimes are pretty stupid too, huh? Are they also exonerated? Why should this particular criminal be any different? </p>

<p>yubi-</p>

<p>I give up. </p>

<p>Some people just can't be convinced regardless of how much evidence there is in support of it. It's like a hung jury after matching DNA evidence, a confession, and a videotape of the criminal commiting the felony. </p>

<p>I've never understood such people as long as I've lived. You aren't being open-minded. Just the opposite. You're ignoring every single shred of evidence out there, so you're being as close-minded as possible. </p>

<p>The "professionals" have already weighed in. Random House, the largest publishing house in the United States, and their lawyers believe this is a clear and obvious case of plagirism.</p>

<p>There is no way they would make such statements unless they were absolutely convinced that this was the case. </p>

<p>And Viswanathan's own words indicate her guilt. She lied about books influencing her own work. </p>

<p>CAN YOU DENY THIS?</p>

<p>One minor point...</p>

<p>"Last week, when asked whether anything inspired her novel, she responded, 'no, nothing influenced me.'"</p>

<p>and</p>

<p>"This week her story changed to 'there were two books which I absolutely adored and worshipped two years ago and which I internalized to a great degree.'"</p>

<p>really do not necessarily conflict. It might not have been a conscious direct influence, even if she did admire and "internalize" the book. Come on, you think any artist, author, musician, etc., is completely uninspired by the works of others? I think you're misinterpreting that quote a bit, Gracie...</p>

<p>Blah, minor point, and just playing devil's advocate :p</p>

<p>On the same note...</p>

<p>"Also, try this little experiment; read two books, and then, a week later (as opposed to two years later), see how many specific paragraphs you can cite perfectly."</p>

<p>I believe the counter-argument to accusations of her actively plagiarizing would be that it was subconscious, so in such a case one might not be able to necessarily recall passages on command, even if they're there deep down...</p>

<p>Again, not trying to get into an argument! Just trying to point out a couple of issues I have with your case :)</p>

<p>GuitarManARS-</p>

<p>You are exactly correct, and I addressed this on the last page. </p>

<p>However, there's the rub;</p>

<p>"Her memory IS SO AMAZING that she subconciously copied 40 different passages verbatim after reading them two years ago." cry her supporters.</p>

<p>"Her memory IS SO TERRIBLE that she couldn't remember the names of these books." cry her supporters IN THE EXACT SAME SENTENCE.</p>

<p>Especially when both books have the same plot, characters, topic, and story line?</p>

<p>Again, note the duck argument. If every imaginable piece of advice points to conclusion A, why are people accepting conclusion B?</p>

<p>And yeah, it would be pretty stupid to knowingly plagiarize on such a lucrative deal, especially when the plagiarism, while significant, really couldn't have made much of a dent on the overall quality of the work (well, that's based on some passages, even as many as 40. I've read neither book but if she plagiarized plot, etc., that's different). It just seems like there would have been very little motive to do so...</p>

<p>But eh, that might not say much, lol</p>

<p>EDIT: Wrote this before seeing your response. I think most of us here are playing devil's advocate and are still extremely suspicious. Hmm, I'm a scientist, I don't know how many of the other people who are "arguing" with you are, but it's just in my nature to look at both sides and question...I don't disagree with you, per se, and I don't think many here do, either :) Just analyzing things a bit deeper.</p>

<p>wow, i must say that i'm ashamed of her. she gives us teen novel-writers such a bad rep. :-(
there is absolutely NO EXCUSE for copying 40 PASSAGES of someone's work. you might be able to get away with one sentence, but 40 PASSAGES????
and as far as her getting kicked out goes, it really depends on how big the case gets. im sure harvard doesn't want to gain a reputation for admitting cheaters.</p>

<p>GuitarManARS- </p>

<p>There's a TON of motive to do so. Again, she DIDN'T JUST COPY specific passages.</p>

<p>She copied the same storyline, characters, situations, and events as the two McCafferty novels. </p>

<p>The McCafferty novel is about a nerdy straight-A student girl who longs for a social life.</p>

<p>The Viswanathan novel is about a nerdy straight-A student girl who longs for a social life.... within the context of being accepted into Harvard.</p>

<p>That in and of itself means nothing. Chick lit books are a dime a dozen. </p>

<p>But when you couple this with the 40 passages she copied exactly, and that specific characters have the exact same physical and psychological traits, is there any doubt about what happened here?</p>

<p>Uh oh, if this reflects negatively on all teenage novelists, then here's to hoping an up-and-coming scientist doesn't make up data and submit to Nature! ~worried~</p>

<p>Gracie--Read my edit ;) Copying passages tends not to affect quality. Copying plot...</p>

<p>Teenage novel writers deserve a bad reputation. </p>

<p>I used to write like a maniac during my junior and senior years in high school. (Can you tell?) I thought that everything I was writing was unique, funny, and important. </p>

<p>Today, I cringe at how awful every single sentence was in my works. How dull, stupid, and utterly meaningless they were. I'm not the only one, though. </p>

<p>How many great authors wrote anything of substance when they were teenagers? I don't want a long list of names. I just want one. Do you know of any?</p>

<p>Edit: </p>

<p>Guitarman, I never said that it affected the quality. Only that's it's a clear case of plagirism. </p>

<p>I noted the other aspects of the novels being copied as an answer to everyone demanding some type of motive.</p>

<p>Right, the point about quality is that if you assume she was acting rationally (which is an assumption some will make, some will not), then if the plagiarism didn't affect the quality of her work that much, it most likely wasn't intentional. That's the rationale behind demanding a motive, so in a sense we're talking about the same thing :)</p>

<p>ouch, that hurts GracieLegend. im actually in the process of publishing my own novel now. one of my friends read it and she was like, "i swear that i'm not just saying this, your book was seriously liberating and yet hilarious at the same time". so i hope my book can be of use to people and IS of substance once its published.
i think it all has to do with the context. not everyone makes their stories completely frivolous.</p>

<p>Alright, last post. </p>

<p>Here's a rundown of the major evidence;</p>

<ol>
<li> Viswanathan denies being influenced by any books in an interview conducted last week;</li>
</ol>

<p>


</p>

<ol>
<li><p>The Harvard Crimson publishes this; <a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=512965%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=512965&lt;/a>, outlining egregious and obvious cases of plagirism between Viswanathan's work and two novels by McCafferty. </p></li>
<li><p>Viswanathan changes her story; "I loved and adored two books by McCafferty a couple of years ago, they certainly influenced me, and I subconciously internalized them."</p></li>
<li><p>People wonder how one has the photographic memory to subconciously copy all this material VERBATIM yet have completely forgetten the name of the two books, but then magically remember them a week later while facing major lawsuits.</p></li>
<li><p><a href="http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6327824.html?display=breaking%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6327824.html?display=breaking&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li>
</ol>

<p>Random House, the largest, most famous publishing house in the US, which was responsible for McCafferty's books, ("the professionals", if you will) says that this is clearly a case of plagirism and that they have found over 40 identical passages. </p>

<p>They state that Viswanathan's replies are clearly not honest, that McCafferty, (who brought this to their attention and herself believes this to be obvious plagirism) is absolutely devastated, and that they expect to file charges. </p>

<ol>
<li> Even someone like Katie Couric doesn't believe Viswanathan's story, on daytime television no less.</li>
</ol>

<p>jasminejewel- Alright, send me a few chapters of your work if you don't mind.</p>

<p>Yubi--I'm not sure what you mean when you say that "the arguments on both sides are strong". Obviously, there are at least 29 and possibly as many as 40 passages where Viswanathan has used language similar to that found in the McCafferty books. This is plagiarism. The only question is how they came to be in the book. Viswanathan has argued that she internalized McCafferty's book and unconsciously used the same language. I don't think that her argument is credible. While it is possible that vivid language such as "170 speciality shops" might have popped into her head and she didn't remember where she had seen it, it is highly unlikely that fairly mundane language such as "for the first 15 years of my life, those were the only qualifications I needed in a best friend" and other similar word for word copying would have somehow been lodged in her unconscious. In addition, it would seem unlikely that all the plagiarized language came from two books by the same author--if she was prone to this sort of thing, you would think that she would have picked up vivid language from many different books and used it "unconsciously". </p>

<p>I don't know why she got into Harvard. However, I would think that the fact that she had written a novel and was shopping it around would have been an attractive part of her application. However, I disagree with Gracie that she wouldn't be at Harvard if not for her plagiarism. At the point at which she was accepted, she probably hadn't even written most of her book and the language might not have even been in the book. Also, I doubt that she received her contract on the strength of the 29 or 40 passages that are plagiarized.</p>

<p>That said, as I have noted before, I hope that she does not profit from her actions and that at least her second book is cancelled.</p>

<p>Don't worry midatlmom, Random House and Little Brown will reach an agreement whereby McCafferty and her publishers receive a percentage of both the book sales and Dreamworks movie version. </p>

<p>Then, the movie adoptation, staring Lindsay Lohan, will become a major cult hit, the American equivalent of "Bend it Like Beckham". </p>

<p>Viswanathan will quietly finish up her four years at Harvard, release a few more mildly successful works, and then laugh at all of us while she enjoys the seven figures she's made. </p>

<p>Meanwhile, talented writers will be working manuel labor or commiting suicide.</p>

<p>(See: Kennedy O'Toole)</p>